animal
Animal (2008), 2:12, pp 1809–1817 & The Animal Consortium 2008 doi:10.1017/S175173110800311X
Group housing in row cages: an alternative housing system for juvenile mink S. Ha¨nninen1-, L. Ahola1, T. Pyyko¨nen1, H. T. Korhonen2 and J. Mononen1 1
Department of Biosciences, University of Kuopio, PO Box 1627, FIN-70211 Kuopio, Finland; 2Agrifood Research Finland, Animal Production Research, PO Box 44, FIN-69101 Kannus, Finland
(Received 25 March 2008; Accepted 28 July 2008; First published online 2 September 2008)
We studied a group housing system as an alternative to the traditional pair housing of juvenile mink. The focus was on both the welfare and production of mink. The pairs were housed in standard mink cages, whereas the groups were in row cage systems consisting of three standard mink cages connected to each other. The welfare of the mink was evaluated by behavioural observations (stereotypies and social contacts), evaluation of the incidence of scars assumed to be caused by biting, and adrenal function (serum cortisol level after adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) administration and adrenal mass). Feed consumption, pelt length, quality and price were used for comparing the two housing systems from the economic point of view. Although the incidence of scars showed that there might have been more aggressive behaviour among the group-housed than among the pair-housed mink, this was not observed unambiguously in behavioural observations, and, at least, aggression did not cause mortality or serious injuries to the animals as has been observed in some earlier studies. In addition, the housing system did not affect pelt size, and, although the quality of the pelts was slightly lower in the group than in pair-housed mink, there was only a tendency for lower pelt prices. The lower pelt prices in the group-housed mink might even be partially compensated for by the group-housed mink eating 10% to 20% less in the late autumn, due to thermoregulatory benefits, than their pair-housed conspecifics. The results on the frequency of stereotypic behaviour (but not adrenal function) suggest that the group-housed animals were possibly less stressed than the pair-housed animals. Group housing of juvenile farmed mink in a row cage system cannot be recommended before the effects on welfare and production are clarified in further studies. Keywords: fur farming, fur quality, group housing, mink, welfare
Introduction The worldwide production of farmed mink (Neovison vison, earlier Mustela vison) is over 50 million pelts per year (Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association, 2008). Most farmed mink are juveniles born in the spring and pelted in the early winter. The whole population of mink kept on farms is much larger, more than 60 million if breeding animals and individuals that die before pelting are included. Thus, any improvements in the housing of the mink would affect the welfare of a great number of animals. Traditionally, the juvenile mink are raised from weaning (at the age of 6 to 8 weeks) onwards in pairs, in cages where the only enrichments are another mink and a nest box with wood shavings or straw as bedding material (European Commission, 2001). Juvenile mink may also be housed singly (Nimon and Broom, 1999). However, pair-housed mink grow better (Møller, -
E-mail:
[email protected]
1991) and show fewer and later developing stereotypies (Damgaard and Hansen, 1996) than singly housed mink and therefore pair housing has been considered to be better for the mink. Despite these benefits, the traditional pair housing is not necessarily the optimal way of housing mink. Even the pair housing system has been considered to be rather barren, and it has been argued that additional enrichments should be offered to the mink to improve the welfare of these animals (Nimon and Broom, 1999). Housing in larger cage systems in groups of more than two animals could be one way of enriching the cage environment of mink. A larger cage system, required for a group of animals, makes it possible for all the animals in the group to utilise the larger space, and also provides room for a more complex environment, e.g. tunnels, removable walls, possibility for climbing and other enriching objects (as suggested in the recommendations of the European Convention (1999) and the report of the European Commission (2001)). Furthermore, when there are several animals in the 1809
Ha¨nninen, Ahola, Pyyko¨nen, Korhonen and Mononen same cage system, different social contacts could also act as enrichment. Although mink are regarded as solitary in the wild (Birks, 1986; Dunstone, 1993; Niemimaa and Pokki, 1997), juvenile mink have been raised successfully on farms in pairs or triplets for decades (Joergensen 1985). Group housing of mink has, in principle, been enabled by both European recommendations (European Convention, 1999) and Finnish National Legislation (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 1999). The recommendations of the European Convention (1999) state that the area of a cage of a mink pair must be at least 2550 cm2, and each additional animal must have at least 850 cm2 additional space. These space allowance recommendations are embodied in Finnish law as the animal welfare requirements for fur animals that will come into force in 2010 (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 1999). However, group housing should not be implemented before more experience of group housing at a research scale is gained. Scientific studies of group housing of mink are scanty and the results are not unambiguous. In some studies, the experiences are mainly promising with regard to production, and there have not been any major welfare problems (Jonge de, 1996; Vinke et al., 2002). In other studies, mortality has been higher (Pedersen, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2004), aggressive behaviour more frequent (Hansen et al., 1997; Pedersen, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2004; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008) and body mass at pelting lower (Pedersen, 1999; Lindberg et al., 2005) in group-housed than in pair-housed mink. On the other hand, group-housed mink may have lower adrenal mass, serum cortisol level (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008) and urine cortisol–creatinine ratio (Arts et al., 2004), less tail biting (Jonge de, 1996; Pedersen, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2004; Hansen and Houbak, 2005) and less stereotypies (Jeppesen et al., 2000) than pair-housed mink. In this study, we compared a group housing system and the traditional pair housing of juvenile mink. The focus was on both the welfare and production of mink. The pairs were housed in standard mink cages and the groups in row cage systems consisting of three standard mink cages connected to each other. The welfare of the mink was evaluated by behavioural observations (stereotypies and social contacts), incidence of scars in the fleshed skins assumed to be caused by biting, and adrenal function (serum cortisol level after adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) administration and adrenal mass). Feed consumption, pelt size, quality and price were used for comparing the two housing systems from the economic point of view. Material and methods
Ethical note The experiment was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Kuopio (Licence nos. 00-32 and 02-39). Animals and housing conditions The experiment was carried out at the Juankoski Research Station of the University of Kuopio. Data were collected during 2 years with similar experimental set-ups in both years. 1810
The study was carried out in an unheated animal barn with eight rows of mink cages. In May, the wild colour-type mink dams gave birth in standard mink cages with a wooden nest box (Figure 1) with straw as bedding. The nest box was situated in the front of the cage, i.e. nearest to the corridor between the cage rows. Twelve (the first year) and 14 (the second year) litters were selected for the study from the whole mink population of the farm (61 and 55 litters, respectively). The kits were weaned from their mothers at the age of 8 weeks. Three male and three female kits were randomly selected from each litter for the study, and extra kits were removed from the litters. Matched litter pairs were formed, by taking into account litter size and age of the kits, and were divided evenly into group-housed (GH, n 5 6 and 7 litters) and pair-housed (PH, n 5 6 and 7 litters) groups. There were a total of 156 kits (39 GH males, 39 GH females, 39 PH males and 39 PH females) in the experiment. The kits were marked with subcutaneous microchips (Indexel, Digital Angel Corporation, USA) to enable identification of the GH individuals. The GH mink were moved as litters to row cage systems formed by connecting three standard mink cages (with nest boxes), and the mink had access to all three nest boxes (Figure 1). The PH litters were housed in the traditional way, i.e. in brother–sister pairs in standard mink cages with a nest box. The GH and PH animals were placed in adjacent cages in two rows so that each PH litter had its matched GH litter on the other side of the corridor separating the two cage rows, and on each cage row, there was always a GH litter after a PH litter. Nest boxes with straw bedding were available in the cages of both groups throughout the study. The animals were fed ad libitum with fresh fur-animal feed twice a day until the end of September and once a day thereafter. The feed, containing fish, slaughter offal, grain, protein mixture, oils, water and vitamin-iron supplements, was manufactured according to the Finnish recommendations (Tuori et al., 2000). The porridge-like feed was delivered on the roofs of the cages. In the GH group, the daily feed portion was divided evenly on the roofs of all the cages of each litter. Water was available in all cages ad libitum until it froze in November and thereafter it was served twice a day. The general health of the animals was checked daily.
Data collection The behaviour of the animals was analysed from 24-h videorecordings made in August, i.e. during the dispersal time of mink in the wild (Niemimaa and Pokki, 1997), and in November. The data were recorded using a video switcher (switching interval 50 s). The use of the nest boxes (‘in the nest box’, i.e. the animals that were not on the cage floor or platform) and the general activity in the cage (‘active in the cage’, ‘passive in the cage’) were analysed from the videotapes with instantaneous sampling (Martin and Bateson, 1993) with 3.5 to 4 min intervals (depending on the number of cameras in use). An animal was regarded as passive if it was lying down; other behaviours were regarded as active behaviour. If it was not possible to ascertain (because of darkness
Group housing of juvenile farmed mink
Plastic tube L 10 cm, ø 10 cm
30 cm
Cages for one PH litter - 2130 cm2/cage - 1065 cm2/mink
Cage height 38 cm
Nest box height 30 cm
27 cm
71 cm
18 cm
Platform 23 cm above cage floor
Corridor
Width at least 100 cm
Cage system for one GH litter - 6390 cm2/cage system - 1065 cm2/mink
Figure 1 Schematic drawing of the experimental cages from above. PH: juvenile mink housed in male–female pairs (three from each litter) in standard mink cages, GH: juvenile mink housed in groups of three males and three females (all from the same litter) in row cage systems. Note that the corridor width is not to scale.
or other reasons affecting visibility on the videotape) whether an animal was in the cage or in the nest box, its behaviour was classified as ‘not known’. Individual animals could not be identified from the videotapes and therefore the behavioural analyses were done within litters, i.e. as the percentage of animals within each litter performing a certain behaviour at a sample point. The analyses were done within litters, i.e. for the six siblings also in the pair-housed animals, to obtain data that were comparable between the groups. Social interactions (including fights, threatening or biting another animal and social play) and stereotyped pacing in the cage were analysed with one–zero sampling (Martin and Bateson, 1993) for 50 s periods with 3.5 to 4 min intervals. Social interactions and stereotyped pacing were pooled within each litter, i.e. if one animal was performing a certain behaviour, that behaviour was recorded for the whole litter. The dirtiness of the nest boxes and straw bedding in the box was scored every second week from August to November on a subjective five-point scale from zero (clean) to four (extremely dirty). The nest boxes were manually cleaned, dirty or wet bedding was removed and clean bedding added after every scoring. The feed consumption of the litters was measured in September and again in November. The daily ad libitum
portions and leftovers were weighed (accuracy 61 g) during a two- (second year) or three- (first year) day period. The results were combined from these days and converted to daily feed consumption per animal for each litter (GH or PH) per day. The kits were weighed (accuracy 6 1 g) in July (at weaning, when they were 8 weeks old), August, September, October and November (at pelting, when the kits were 30 to 32 weeks old). At pelting, the kits were injected (i.m.) with 0.06 ml synthetic ACTH (Synacthen-Depot 1 mg/ml, Ciba). This was an overdose (at least 0.023 mg/kg0.75) and ensured the maximal secretion of cortisol to blood (for the ACTH test, see e.g. Broom and Johnson, 1993; Terlouw et al., 1997). Two hours later, the mink were humanely killed with electrocution according to the recommendations of the European Convention (1999). Death was ensured by immediate neck dislocation after electrocution. Blood samples were drawn with heart puncture immediately after death. Serum was separated and stored at 148C and analysed for cortisol (Coat-A-Count Cortisol Assay by Diagnostic Products Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, USA) within 1 week. The animals were pelted, and the carcasses were autopsied to measure the adrenal masses (accuracy 6 0.1 mg) as a second indicator of adrenal function (Selye, 1950; Go´mez et al., 1996; Hemsworth et al., 1996). 1811
Ha¨nninen, Ahola, Pyyko¨nen, Korhonen and Mononen The pelted skins were fleshed and the incidence of scars, assumed to be caused by biting, was recorded from the leather side of the fleshed skins on a subjective scale from zero to five: 0 5 no scars; 1 5 one to three single small scars or red spots; 2 5 more than three single scars or red spots; 3 5 as 2, but in addition small areas of an incalculable number of scars or spots; 4 5 large areas of an incalculable number of scars or spots; 5 5 almost the whole skin covered by scars and spots (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008). The skins were dried in the traditional way by stretching and tacking the fleshed skin to a board and blowing air inside the skins (Joergensen, 1985). The length of the dried skin, i.e. the pelt, was measured (accuracy 6 0.5 cm) from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail. The severity of fur chewing separately in tail and body was analysed from the pelts using a subjective scale from zero to five: 0 5 no damage, 1 5 really minor damage, 2 5 minor damage, 3 5 moderate damage, 4 5 quite severe damage and 5 5 severe damage (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008). The pelts were sent to an auction company, the Finnish Fur Sales Co., Ltd, and professionals of the company scored the ‘general impression’ of the pelt from 1 (poorest) to 10 (best) and recorded fur defects (feed stains, bites and wet belly). The prices of the pelts were also obtained from the Finnish Fur Sales Co., Ltd.
Statistical analyses and presentation of the results The pooled data from 2 years were used to gain better statistical power and to enable better generalisability of the conclusions. For each GH litter, there was a PH litter matched for litter size and age of the kits, so these matched litters were treated as dependent on each other in the statistical analyses. Littermates were, of course, not independent of each other. The data concerning body mass, pelt length, adrenal mass, serum cortisol level after administration of ACTH, scars, fur chewing, fur defects, general impression of pelt and pelt price were collected for individual animals, whereas the values of the remaining variables, i.e. behavioural data, dirtiness of nest boxes and feed consumption, originated from litters of six siblings. For these reasons, n (i.e. the number of experimental units) varies between statistical analyses, although the data came originally from 149–156 (some data missing) animals. The effects of experimental group and sex on body mass, pelt length, adrenal mass, serum cortisol level, pelt price and fur defects were analysed with a linear mixed model (SPSS statistical software; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IN, USA) (n 5 149–156). Litter and matched pair were used as random factors to take into account the dependence of animals within litters and matched pairs. The average pelt price of the auction was used as a covariate for pelt price to correct for the average price differences between the auctions. Body mass in December was used as a covariate when analysing the adrenal mass, serum cortisol level and pelt price. The pelt price was also tested without the covariate. The percentages of mink with fur defects within a litter and sex were calculated for comparisons between housing 1812
methods and sexes with the linear mixed model (n 5 52). Data concerning social interactions and stereotyped pacing were analysed with the linear mixed model (n 5 26) with post-hoc tests with matched pair as random factors. The feed consumption data were analysed with the pairedsamples t-test (n 5 13). The other variables, i.e. scars, fur chewing, general impression, mortality, behavioural data and nest box tidiness, were tested with nonparametric tests. Because of the dependence between animals within each litter and each matched pair, the data from individual animals were combined by calculating mean values from the values of individual animals before testing for differences in scars, fur chewing and general impression. This was done separately for both sexes within each litter to enable gender comparisons. Thus, four dependent variables were produced for each of these parameters: GH males, GH females, PH males and PH females. The number of kits that died and the number of litters with deaths were compared between the housing systems with Fisher’s exact test. The fur chewing, scar score and general impression data were analysed with both the Friedman two-way analyses of variance (henceforth the Friedman test) test with post-hoc tests for pair-wise comparisons of the four groups (as presented in Siegel and Castellan, 1988), and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs test (henceforth the Wilcoxon test) with Bonferroni correction to compare the two experimental groups (sexes pooled) and the two sexes (groups pooled). Activity and resting in the cage, and the time spent in the nest box were compared between the groups and between the months with the Friedman test. Pair-wise comparisons between groups within months and between months within groups were carried out with a post-hoc test as presented in Siegel and Castellan (1988). The nest box tidiness data were compared with the Wilcoxon test if the experimental groups were compared within months, and with the Friedman test if time trends (i.e. repeated measurements) were analysed. The number of experimental units, i.e. n, was 13 in all the nonparametric analyses. The results are presented as estimated marginal mean 6 s.e. of estimate (EMM 6 Sy.x) or mean 6 s.e. of mean (x 6 s.e.). The level of statistical significance was set at the conventional 0.05, but to facilitate readers’ opportunities to do their own interpretations of the results, the exact P-values are indicated every time the value is between 0.05 and 0.1 (whenever this is possible); ns indicates nonsignificant differences (P . 0.1). Results Two GH females and one PH female escaped from their cages. Furthermore, two PH males and one PH female died, and in the autopsy they all were found to have fatty livers and stomach ulcers. One PH female had to be euthanised during the experiment because of a seizure of some kind. There was no difference in mortality between the groups (4/78 animals in 3/13 PH litters v. 0/78 animals in 0/13 GH litters, P . 0.1, Fisher’s exact test).
Group housing of juvenile farmed mink Table 1 Growth, adrenal function and pelt characteristics in mink kits housed either in pairs (PH) or as litters (GH) Males
Number of animals Growth BM in July (kg)1 BM in August (kg)1 BM in September (kg)1 BM in October (kg)1 BM in December (kg)1 Adrenal function Cortisol (nmol/l)A,1 Mass of adrenals (mg)A,1 Pelt Pelt length (cm)1 Pelt price (EUR)B,1 Fur chewing in body (scores 0 to 5)2 Fur chewing in tail (scores 0 to 5)2 Fur defects (% of skins)1 Scars (scores 0 to 5)2 General impression (scores 1 to 10)2
Significancey
Females
GH
PH
GH
PH
G
S
G3S
39
37 to 39
37 to 39
36 to 39
0.65 6 0.026 1.33 6 0.029 2.35 6 0.062 2.53 6 0.060 2.62 6 0.053
0.64 6 0.026 1.36 6 0.029 2.55 6 0.062 2.85 6 0.060 2.97 6 0.054
0.53 6 0.026 0.93 6 0.029 1.37 6 0.062 1.45 6 0.061 1.41 6 0.054
0.51 6 0.026 0.91 6 0.029 1.38 6 0.062 1.52 6 0.061 1.52 6 0.054
ns ns P 5 0.076 * **
*** *** *** *** ***
ns ns ** ** **
366 6 29.5 146 6 5.8
349 6 35.6 149 6 7.5
448 6 33.8 111 6 7.0
478 6 32.0 111 6 6.4
ns ns
* ***
ns ns
78 6 0.7 17.1 6 1.55 1.0 6 0.40 1.0 6 0.31 56 6 10.3 3.1 6 0.37ab 5.6 6 0.47a
80 6 0.7 22.3 6 1.69 0.1 6 0.06 0.5 6 0.20 17 6 10.3 2.2 6 0.35b 6.9 6 0.31ab
64 6 0.7 19.2 6 1.69 1.3 6 0.05 1.1 6 0.40 56 6 10.3 3.4 6 0.35a 5.5 6 0.62ab
64 6 0.7 21.5 6 1.64 0.4 6 0.19 0.7 6 0.26 33 6 10.3 2.1 6 0.35b 7.5 6 0.37b
P 5 0.057 P 5 0.062
*** ns
*
ns
** * ns ns ns ** *
See Material and methods for the details of the variables. BM 5 body mass, S 5 sex, G 5 group. y ns (non-significant), P . 0.1, *P , 0.05, **P , 0.01, ***P , 0.001. A BM in December as a covariate. B Average prices in auctions as a covariate. 1 Linear mixed model (n 5 52 in fur defects, n 5 149 to 156 in other parameters, estimated marginal mean 6 Sy.x). 2 Friedman two way analyses of variance (n 5 13, mean 6 s.e., Friedman test results presented in G 3 S column and post-hoc results as lower case superscript letters: means with no common letter differ at P , 0.05 in scars and P , 0.1 in general impression).
Sexual dimorphism could be seen in all size parameters (Table 1). PH mink were heavier at pelting than GH mink and their pelts tended to be longer than those of GH mink, in both sexes. There were no differences between the groups in adrenal function, i.e. serum cortisol level 2 h after ACTH administration or adrenal mass. The groups did not differ in the severity of fur chewing in tail or body when all four groups (i.e. GH males, GH females, PH males and PH females) were compared (Table 1), but the Wilcoxon test showed a weak tendency for a difference in fur chewing in the body between housing systems (sexes pooled within housing systems; GH 5 1.1 6 0.41 v. PH 5 0.3 6 0.09, P 5 0.092, the Wilcoxon test). The general impression of the pelt tended to be worse in GH males than in PH females (Table 1). The GH females tended to have more scars in their skins than the PH females and PH males, whereas the GH males did not differ from any of these. The GH animals had worse general impression of the pelt (GH 5.6 6 0.51 v. PH 7.2 6 0.31) and more scars (GH 2.9 6 0.25 v. PH 1.7 6 0.21) in their skins than the PH animals (P , 0.05 for both, the Wilcoxon test), but there was no difference (P . 0.1) between the sexes in either of the parameters (general impression: males 6.2 6 0.34 v. females 6.5 6 0.32, scars: males 2.2 6 0.22 v. females 2.3 6 0.28). In most of the cases when the scar score was between one and three (i.e. moderate severity of scars), the scars were on the neck area. The GH mink had
more fur defects than the PH mink (Table 1). The price of the pelts tended to be lower in the GH than in the PH animals (Table 1), but the difference disappeared when the body mass in December was used as a covariate. The extent of the use of the various parts of the cages did not differ between the groups in August, whereas in November the GH mink tended to spend more time resting on the cage (including the platform) than the PH mink (Figure 2). Both groups were more active in the cage in August than in November. The PH mink spent more time in the nest box and rested less in the cage in November than in August, while no such difference was seen in the GH mink. Taking both observation months together, there was no overall difference in the frequency of social interactions between the groups, but the frequency decreased more from August to November in pair-housed than in grouphoused mink, leading to differences between the groups in November (Figure 3). The group 3 time interaction in social interactions disappeared (P . 0.1, linear mixed model with post-hoc tests) and the difference between the groups in November decreased to a tendency (P 5 0.052) when activity in the cage was used as a covariate. The frequency of stereotyped behaviour increased from August to November and was more frequent in pair-housed than in group-housed animals, especially in November. The group 3 time interaction in stereotyped behaviour became 1813
Ha¨nninen, Ahola, Pyyko¨nen, Korhonen and Mononen
100
GH ns PH *
GH
PH
ns
% of observations
80
GH ns PH *
GH * PH *
60
40
ns
ns ns ns
o
20
0 Aug
Nov
Aug
Nov
Resting in the cage
Active in the cage
Aug
Nov
In the nest box
Aug
Nov
Not known
Figure 2 Activity and resting in the cage and use of the nest boxes in pair- (PH) and group- (GH) housed mink in August (Ta 5 1108C to 1258C) and November (Ta 5 268C to 168C) (mean1s.e.). The differences between the groups within months are indicated above the columns in bold and the withingroup difference between months above the brackets (Friedman two-way analyses of variance and post-hoc tests). ns, P . 0.1, oP , 0.1, *P , 0.05. Statistically n 5 13, i.e. the number of matched litters, although the data are originally from 149–156 animals.
PH ***
Social interactions
GH ***
50 % of observations
Group ns
Time *** Group x Time *
40 30
ns
20 *
10 0 August
November
Stereotyped pacing 50 % of observations
Group **
Time ***
Group x Time ns
40
Discussion
30 ***
20 10
ns
0 August
November
Figure 3 Social interactions and stereotyped pacing in pair- (PH) and group- (GH) housed mink in August and November (estimated marginal mean 6 Sy.x). The differences between the groups, and the effects of time and group 3 time interactions are presented in the plot areas, the differences between the groups within the months above the bars, and the differences between the months within the groups in the legend box (linear mixed model with post-hoc tests). ns, P . 0.1, *P , 0.05, **P , 0.01, ***P , 0.001. Statistically n 5 52, although the data are originally from 26 litters, i.e. 149–156 animals.
1814
significant (P , 0.05) when activity in the cage was used as a covariate. The nest boxes were dirtier in the GH group than in the PH group in the late autumn, and the dirtiness increased with time in the GH group but not in the PH group (Figure 4) (for brevity, results from only four out of the nine recordings are presented). The PH animals had cleaner nest boxes than the GH animals, and the number of clean nest boxes decreased with time in the GH group but not in the PH group. Feed consumption of PH and GH animals was equal in September (311 g 6 14.3 g v. 289 g 6 10.4 g feed per animal per day, P . 0.1, paired-samples t-test, n 5 13 matched pair litters), but the PH animals consumed more feed than the GH animals in November (285 6 20.3 v. 225 6 19.0 g, P , 0.01).
Welfare Both direct behavioural observations (Hansen et al., 1997; Pedersen, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2004; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008, the present study) and indirect observations based on skin and fur damages (Pedersen, 1999; Hansen and Houbak, 2005; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008, the present study) indicate that there is more aggression, or social encounters resulting in skin damages (see discussion below), in grouphoused than in pair-housed mink. However, the severity of aggression varies greatly between the studies: in seven studies, aggression problems have been mild (Hansen et al., 1997; Hansen and Houbak, 2005; Lindberg et al., 2007; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008, the present study) or not directly
Group housing of juvenile farmed mink 3
P=0.084
*
**
** PH ns
2.5
GH *** 2
1
PH ns
**
P=0.089
1.5
**
August
October
**
GH ***
0.5
0 November
December
Figure 4 The number of clean nest boxes (bars, possible range zero to three) and the dirtiness score of the nest boxes (lines, possible range zero to four) in pair- (PH) and group- (GH) housed juvenile mink litters (mean1s.e.) The differences between the groups in the number of clean nest boxes (above the bars) and in the dirtiness score of the boxes (above the GH line) are indicated for each month (the Wilcoxon matched-pair test). The effect of time on the number of clean nest boxes and dirtiness score of the boxes (Friedman two-way analyses of variance) within each group are indicated in the legend box. ns, P . 0.1, *P , 0.05, **P , 0.01, ***P , 0.001. Statistically n 5 13, i.e. the number of matched litters, although the data are originally from 149–156 animals.
reported and therefore putatively absent or mild (Jonge de, 1996; Vinke et al., 2002), whereas in two studies aggression led to high mortality rates (Pedersen, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2004). Interestingly, the two studies with major aggression problems were carried out with pearl and pastel colour types of mink, and all other studies with brown or wild colour type, except for Lindberg et al. (2007), which was with demi puff and half-sapphire. It is known that coat colour correlates with behaviour in mammals in general (see a review in Hemmer, 1990) and also in mink (see a review in Voitenko and Trapezov, 2001), but it remains to be elucidated whether the coat colour per se or temperament differences not related to the colour type between various mink populations is the primary reason for differences in aggressive behaviour. On the other hand, no matter what the underlying reasons for these population differences are, the possibility of dramatic negative effects on the welfare of mink has to be born in mind when considering group housing as an alternative to the traditional pair housing. Group housing would necessitate better supervision of the animals on farms, and perhaps choosing less aggressive animals for breeding. This would be especially important if the stocking density was higher than two animals per standard cage. According to the European Convention (1999), it is allowed to keep eight mink in a row cage formed by connecting three standard cages to each other. The reason that the higher frequency of seemingly aggressive behaviour in the group-housed animals compared with pair-housed animals has not caused higher mortality in most studies might be that the mink are actually (or at least partly) playing, not fighting. The so-called ‘social biting play’ (Vinke et al., 2005) may be easily confused with true fighting and it can probably also cause scars to the skin.
The fact that mink spend most of their time out of sight in nest boxes (Jeppesen et al., 2000; Pedersen et al., 2004, the present results) may bias the results from behavioural observations. The difference in the frequency of social interactions observed in the present study in November lost statistical significance when total time spent active in the cage was used as a covariate in the statistical analysis. In other words, the analysis without the covariate may have exaggerated the difference between the groups. The nest boxes are certainly large enough to enable mink to fight (or play) in them. Accordingly, indirect measures of aggression, i.e. fur and skin damages, may be more reliable than behavioural observations based on the behaviour outside the nest box only. Behavioural stress indicators have shown that stress levels are equal or even lower in group-housed juvenile mink than in pair-housed juveniles. Fur chewing and in particular tail biting can be regarded as self-mutilation, i.e. as an indicator of poor welfare in mink (Hansen et al., 1998). There is less tail biting and an equal level of fur chewing in groups compared with pairs (Pedersen, 1999; Pedersen et al., 2004; Hansen and Houbak, 2005; Lindberg et al., 2007). The frequency of stereotypies, a sign of frustration and poor welfare (e.g. Mason and Latham, 2004), has been reported to be equal in group-housed and pair-housed mink (Hansen et al., 1997; Pedersen, 1999, Vinke et al., 2002; Pedersen et al., 2004; Lindberg et al., 2007; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008) or even slightly lower in group than in pair housing (Jeppesen et al., 2000, the present study). However, the relation between stereotypic behaviour and welfare is ambiguous (Mason and Latham, 2004). For example, in the present study, social tension may have hindered the development of stereotypic behaviour in group-housed mink. 1815
Ha¨nninen, Ahola, Pyyko¨nen, Korhonen and Mononen In contrast to behavioural signs of stress, adrenal function results are less consistent between various studies: no differences between group and pair housing (the present study), lower adrenal mass and response to the ACTH in group housing (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008), and higher adrenal mass (Vinke et al., 2002) and higher level of plasma cortisol in female kits (Hansen and Damgaard, 1991) in group housing have been observed. These discrepancies between studies may reflect rather the problem of using adrenal function as a stress indicator in general (c.f. Rushen, 1991) and in mink (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008) than true differences in stress levels between the experimental groups in the various studies.
Production The present results show that stress-related own-fur chewing was not statistically different in group- and pair-housed animals, whereas aggression or play-related damages are more frequent in group-housed than in pair-housed animals. The net effect on production is that pelts from group-housed mink have a higher frequency of fur defects (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008, the present study) and lower general impression (Lindberg et al., 2007, the present study). These differences did not, however, have a statistically significant effect on the prices of the pelts in the present study. Besides pelt quality, another crucial factor affecting the prices of the pelts is pelt length. The body mass has been reported to be either equal in group-housed and pairhoused mink (Jonge de, 1996; Vinke et al., 2002; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008) or slightly lower in group housing than in pair housing in males (Pedersen, 1999) or in both sexes (the present study). Although the body mass may be lower to some extent in group-housed than in pair-housed mink, pelt length is equal (Pedersen, 1999; Ha¨nninen et al., 2008) or the difference between experimental groups is minimal (2 cm in males and no difference in females; the present study) as compared to the 6 cm difference between the size classes in the auctions. The lower body mass in group-housed mink results at least partially from group-housed mink consuming less feed than pair-housed mink (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008, the present study). Combined with the almost equal pelt length in pairs and in groups, this may indicate that pair-housed mink gather more fat than group-housed mink. In mink, most fat deposits are gathered as subcutaneous fat, which acts as additional insulation for this semiaquatic species (Nieminen et al., 2006). It is possible that this additional insulation is more important for pair-housed than for group-housed mink, since group-housed mink may have thermoregulatory benefits from being able to utilise huddling. For mink kits, huddling is an effective way of reducing energy loss, especially because of their short hair and elongated and thin body shape (Tauson et al., 2006). Our earlier family housing experiment showed that mink housed in groups spent most of their time huddled together (mainly in the nest box) when the ambient temperature dropped to near or below zero (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008). Interestingly, the 1816
group-housed mink clearly keep at least one of their nest boxes clean and dry (Ha¨nninen et al., 2008, the present results). Nest boxes with dry bedding are an important prerequisite for successful behavioural thermoregulation in farmed mink (Korhonen and Harri, 1984), and keeping typically only one nest box clean also in the present study (see Figure 1) may indicate that the mink rested in that nest box in a huddle. Unfortunately, this could not be confirmed from the video observations, because it was impossible to see into the nest boxes, where most resting and consequently also huddling occur. It could be hypothesised that the dirtiness of the nest boxes might have forced the mink to huddle together in only one nest box. On the other hand, the mink huddled together also when resting in the cage. Conclusions Although the incidence of scars showed that there might have been more aggressive behaviour among the grouphoused than among the pair-housed mink, this was not observed unambiguously in behavioural observations, and, at least, aggression did not cause mortality or serious injuries to the animals. It is also possible that social biting play may be erroneously interpreted as aggression in mink. In addition, the housing system did not affect pelt size, and although the quality of the pelts was slightly lower in group-housed than in pair-housed mink, there was only a tendency for lower pelt prices. The lower pelt prices might even be partially compensated for by the group-housed mink eating 10% to 20% less in the late autumn, due to thermoregulatory benefits, than their pair-housed conspecifics. The group-housed animals were possibly less stressed than the pair-housed animals, but these results were not unambiguous. Acknowledgements This study was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation. We are grateful to Maija Miskala, Matti Tengvall and Rose-Marie Nybondas for their skillful assistance when taking care of the animals and collecting the data and for Seppo Kukkonen for performing the biochemical analyses. Finnish Fur Sales Co., Ltd is acknowledged for providing us with skin quality and price data. Two anonymous referees are acknowledged for their constructive comments on the manuscript of the present paper.
References Arts J, Vinke CM, Houx BB, de Buisonje F, van den Bos R and Spruijt BM 2004. Effects of group housing and cage enrichment on physiology and behaviour of farmed mink (Mustela vison). In Cage enrichments and welfare of farmed mink (ed. CM Vinke). PhD, Utrecht University, pp. 105–129. Birks J 1986. Mink. The mammal society. Anthony Nelson Ltd, Shropshire, UK. Broom DM and Johnson KG 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Chapman & Hall, London, UK. Damgaard BM and Hansen SW 1996. Stress physiological status and fur properties in farm mink placed in pairs or singly. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 46, 253–259. Dunstone N 1993. The mink. T & AD Payser, London, UK.
Group housing of juvenile farmed mink European Commission 2001. The welfare of animals kept for fur production. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate – General. Directorate C – Scientific Opinions. C2 – Management of Scientific CoOperation and Networks. Adopted on 12–13 December 2001. European Convention 1999. European Convention, Standing committee of the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (T-AP). Recommendations concerning fur animals, The Standing Committee. 36th Meeting, Strasbourg, 22–25 June 1999. Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association 2008. Minkinnahkojen tarjontama¨a¨ra¨t maailmanmarkkinoilla v. 2005–2007. Retrieved July 17, 2008, http://www.stkl-fpf.fi/ modules/system/stdreq.aspx?P564&VID5default&SID5381053956340420&S5 0&C522127 (in Finnish). Go´mez F, Lahmame A, de Kloet ER and Armario A 1996. Hypothalamic– pituitary–adrenal response to chronic stress in five inbred strains: differential responses are mainly located at the adrenocortical level. Neuroendocrinology 63, 327–337. Ha¨nninen S, Mononen J, Harjunpa¨a¨ S, Pyyko¨nen T, Sepponen J and Ahola L 2008. Effects of family housing on some behavioural and physiological parameters of juvenile farmed mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 109, 384–395.
the Autumn Meeting of the Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, Subsection for Fur Animals, Seminar no. 403, Kolding, Denmark, 6 pp. Martin P and Bateson P 1993. Measuring behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Mason GJ and Latham NR 2004. Can’t stop, won’t stop: is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Animal Welfare 13, S57–S69. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1999. Decision on animal welfare requirements for fur animals. 16/VFO/1999. Retrieved July 17, 2008, http:// www.mmm.fi/el/laki/f/f26.html (in Finnish). Møller SH 1991. Weight gain and hair chewing in mink kits placed singly or in pairs from September. Scientifur 15, 21–27. Niemimaa J and Pokki J 1997. Minkki. In Suomen luonto, Ela¨imet, Nisa¨kka¨a¨t (ed. J Lokki, P Nummi, V Neuvonen, K Miettinen and R-L Kuosmanen), pp. 192–197 Weilin1Go¨o¨s, Porvoo, Finland. Nieminen P, Ka¨kela¨ R, Pyyko¨nen T and Mustonen A-M 2006. Selective fatty acid mobilization in the American mink (Mustela vison) during food deprivation. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 145, 81–93. Nimon AJ and Broom DM 1999. The welfare of farmed mink (Mustela vison) in relation to housing and management: a review. Animal Welfare 8, 205–228.
Hansen SW and Damgaard BM 1991. Stress physiological, haematological and clinical-chemical status of farm mink placed in groups or singly. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 41, 355–366.
Pedersen V 1999. Alternative Burmiljøer til Mink – Hvad er Vore Erfaringer?. In Faglig A˚rsberetning (ed. P Sandbøl), pp. 17–23. Pelsdyrerhvervets Forsøgs- og ForskningsCenter, Holstebro, Danmark.
Hansen SW and Houbak B 2005. To skridt frem og tre tilbage – gruppeindhusning af mink. In Faglig A˚rsberetning 2004 (ed. P Sandbøl), pp. 39–47. Pelsdyrerhvervets Forsøgs- og ForskningsCenter, Holstebro, Danmark.
Pedersen V, Jeppesen L and Jeppesen N 2004. Effects of group housing on behaviour and production performance in farmed juvenile mink (Mustela vison). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 89–100.
Hansen SW, Houbak B and Malmkvist J 1997. Does the ‘solitary’ mink benefit from having company? Nordiska jordbruksforskares fo¨rening, Utredning, Rapport nr. 116, NJF seminarium nr. 280. NJF, Helsinki, Finland.
Rushen J 1991. Problems associated with the interpretation of physiological data in the assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 28, 381–386.
Hansen SW, Houbak B and Malmkvist J 1998. Development and possible causes of fur damage in farm mink – significance of social environment. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section A Animal Science 48, 58–64. Hemmer H 1990. Domestication: the decline of environmental appreciation, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Selye H 1950. The physiology and pathology of exposure to stress. Acta, Inc., Medical Publishers, Montreal, Canada.
Hemsworth PH, Barnett JL and Campbell RG 1996. A study of the relative aversiveness of a new daily injection procedure for pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49, 1996. Jeppesen LL, Heller KE and Dalsgaard T 2000. Effects of early weaning and housing conditions on the development of stereotypes in farmed mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 85–92. Joergensen G (ed.) 1985. Mink production. Scientifur. K. Larsen & Søn, Glostrup, Denmark. Jonge de G 1996. A new housing system for mink. Progress in fur animal science, animal production review, Polish Society of Animal Production (Warsaw). Applied Science Report 29, 45–51. Korhonen H and Harri M 1984. Thermophysical properties of nests of farm mustelids: thermal insulation. Scientifur 8, 285–290. Lindberg H, Alde´n E and Lidfors L 2005. Group housed mink – effect on welfare and production. Conference at the Autumn Meeting of the Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, Subsection for Fur Animals, Seminar no. 377, Uppsala, Sweden, 2 pp. Lindberg H, Hansen S, Alde´n E and Lidfors L 2007. Effects of climbing cages and group size on behaviour and production in juvenile mink. Conference at
Siegel S and Castellan NJ Jr 1988. Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York, USA. Tauson A-H, Chwalibog A and Tygesen MP 2006. Late development of homeothermy in mink (Mustela vison) kits – a strategy for maximum survival rate. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 90, 34–45. Terlouw EMC, Schouten WGP and Ladewig J 1997. Physiology. In Animal welfare (ed. MC Appleby and BO Hughes), pp. 143–158. CAB International, University Press, Cambridge, UK. Tuori M, Kaustell K, Valaja J, Aimonen E, Saarisalo E and Huhtanen P 2000. Rehutaulukot ja ruokintasuositukset (Feed tables and feeding recommendations), 3rd edition. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, Finland. Vinke CM, Baars A, Spruijt BM and Ruis M 2002. Do family group housing systems improve the welfare of farmed mink? In Proceedings of the 36th International Congress of the ISAE (ed. P Koene and Scientific Committee), 164 pp. Ponsen and Looijen, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Vinke CM, van Leeuwen J and Spruijt BM 2005. Juvenile farmed mink (Mustela vison) with additional access to swimming water play more frequently than animals housed with a cylinder and platform, but without swimming water. Animal Welfare 14, 53–60. Voitenko NN and Trapezov OV 2001. Effect of four coat color mutations (Cr, S, SH, and h) on brain monoamine oxidase in mink. Russian Journal of Genetics 37, 519–522.
1817
